298Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

 

7

Allegoreo | Allegorically

 

Return to Submission…

Paul is now Public Enemy Number One! The crime against Yahowah’s Towrah is Identity Theft and it occurs in Sha’uwl’s letter to the Galatians. So, do we observe the Towrah or put our faith in Foolology? I suppose it depends upon whom you ask.

This extraordinarily strange man is within four verses of his crescendo – the ultimate objective of his life’s work. We are on the cusp of witnessing the most vulgar message ever spoken in the name of God, er, well, in the name of Paulos.

But before we consider the wannabe Apostle’s crowning achievement, since it is based upon the myth that there are two covenants, with the Devil’s Advocate having established the second through faith, let’s consider the truth in this regard. According to Yahowah, His one and only Covenant has not yet been renewed. And when He, Himself, restores it, His affirmation will be predicated upon the integration of His Towrah in our lives – not its repudiation.

Since there is nothing more foundational to knowing God than understanding His Covenant and the role His Towrah plays in our lives, let’s let God speak for Himself on this critical matter. For if there is but one Covenant, one familial relationship which can be formed between God and humankind, and if its renewal and reaffirmation is predicated upon our acceptance of His Towrah, we are 299precluded from accepting the myth of a “New Testament.” And should that be the case, we can toss Paul’s letters, and the entire New Testament, to the wind.

Yahowah, speaking for Himself, said...

“‘Behold (hineh – look up, take this all in and pay especially close attention to the details), a time is coming (yowmym bow’ – days are approaching and will arrive (qal participle plural – literally and actually, dramatically and emphatically, for the benefit of the relationship)),’ Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s one and only name transliterated as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation as ‘elowah – Almighty God) reveals, well in advance of it occurring (na’um – prophetically declares), ‘when I will enter into and cut with (wa karat ‘eth – when I will establish through separation a set-apart agreement on behalf of) the Family of Yisra’el (Beyth Yisra’el – the Home and Household of those who Engage and Endure with God, Israel) and with (wa ‘eth – also together with and through) the Family of Yahuwdah (Beyth Yahuwdah – the Household and Home of those Beloved by Yah and Related to Yah, Jews) a restored and renewed (chadash – a repaired and reaffirmed; from chadash – to renew and repair, to restore and reaffirm) Covenant (Beryth – Family-Oriented Relationship).’” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:31)

The part of this astounding prophetic declaration from God which Christians, desperate to justify their “New Testament” miss, is that the renewal and restoration of the “Beryth – Covenant” is not with Gentiles, and thus cannot be with the Church of the Uncircumcised. It is, instead, with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el | Jews and Israel. This promise, therefore, cannot apply to Christianity. Replacement Theology is torn asunder. It is game over. Paul was wrong – dead wrong!

300And further aggravating the devastating problem Christians face, this reconciliation has not yet transpired. Therefore a “Renewed Covenant” is premature, and a “New Testament” will never occur.

As a result, the only question worth debating is whether chadash should be translated as “new” or “renewed,” as both are etymologically acceptable. Is God going to renew and restore, reaffirm and repair the Covenant presented in the Towrah with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, or is He going to scrap the Towrah’s definition of this relationship and create an entirely new agreement?

To put this question to rest, you should know that the primary meaning of chadash is “to renew, to restore, to repair, and to reaffirm.” Of the ten times this verb is scribed in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, it is correctly translated: “restore and reaffirm” in 1 Samuel 11:14, “renewed and repaired” in 2 Chronicles 15:8, “to repair” in 2 Chronicles 24:4, “to repair and mend” in 2 Chronicles 24:12, “renewed” in Job 10:7, “renew” in Psalm 51:12, “renewed” in Psalm 103:5, again as “renewed” in Psalm 104:30, “repair” in Isaiah 61:4, and “renew and restore” in Lamentations 5:21.

As a further affirmation of “renewed and restored” being the most appropriate translation of chadash in this context, we find that within the prophetic writings of Yirma’yah / Jerimiah and Yasha’yah / Isaiah, each time Yahowah inspired either man to scribe chadash, by rendering it “renewed,” or especially “restored,” we achieve a substantially more enlightening result than translating this word “new.” Further, chadash’s primary meaning is derived from its use as “month,” where it is the renewing of reflected light on the moon’s surface which denotes its beginning.

These things known, the next statement in Yahowah’s end-days prophecy seems to suggest that there will be a 301different Covenant – distinct from the one whose terms and conditions were delineated in the Towrah. But is this even possible? Could God do such a thing without seriously contradicting other statements He has made and, in so doing, rendering Himself capricious, and His Word unreliable?

“‘It will differ somewhat from (lo’ ka – it won’t be exactly like) the Covenant (ha Beryth – the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) which, to reveal the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – which provides directions showing the steps to walk which are correct and yet restrictive and give meaning to life, providing encouragement and joy to those who are properly led and guided that (qal perfect)), I entered into (karat – I established by setting apart when I cut) with their fathers (‘eth ‘ab hem) on the day (ba yowm – during the time) I firmly took them by the hand, and with inspiring intent, overpowered the situation (chazaq ‘any ba yad – I showed an intense resolve and was inflexible in My influence over them, even overpowering them due to the urgent need for them to prevail (hifil infinitive construct – I caused this to occur with them, influencing them such that they would be active participants associated with Me)) to bring them out (la yatsa’ min hem – to draw them away from and bring them close, descending and extending Myself to serve by removing them from (hifil infinitive construct)) of the realm of the Crucibles of Oppression in Egypt (‘erets Mitsraym – the place of subjugation associated with religious coercion and political tyranny, the land of military domination and economic cruelty; from a compound of my – to question and tsarym – troubling, confining, and adversarial situations).

Relationally, they broke (‘asher hem parar ‘eth – they sought to nullify that relationship by thwarting its intent and by disassociating from the correct path, thereby revoking the benefits by splitting into two parts (read: 302creating the Talmud to nullify the Towrah or a New Testament to contradict and revoke God’s testimony) (hifil perfect)) My Covenant (‘eth beryth ‘any – My Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) although for a time I acted as a husband with them (wa ‘anoky ba’al ba hem – even though I acted as a husband, even a leader in a position of authority (qal perfect – genuinely and only for a limited duration)),’ Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s name transliterated as directed by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation) reveals through this prophet (na’um – prophetically declares).” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:32)

The key to appreciating the difference between what occurred 3,500 years ago during the process of leaving Egypt and what will transpire 9 years from now in Yaruwshalaim, Yahuwdah, Yisra’el (on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliation, October 2^nd, 2033, which is year 6000 Yah) can be found in the verbal clause: “chazaq ‘any ba yad – I took them firmly by the hand with overwhelming intent, and overpowering the situation, I showed such an intense resolve, becoming inflexible in My influence due to the urgent need to prevail.” At that moment in time, to save the Children of Yisra’el from being annihilated by the Egyptians, there was the urgency to liberate a reluctant and ignorant audience who were enslaved, people who knew little of Yahowah and nothing of His Towrah or Covenant. They had only just been introduced to Pesach and Matsah and were unaware of anything beyond. It would be seven weeks before they would be given access to Yahowah’s Towrah Guidance and, with it, an explanation of the Conditions of the Covenant.

I would also like to affirm what most miss because this comparison isn’t with the original conditions of the Covenant established with ‘Abraham and Sarah in 1968 BCE. It is instead with the process of extracting the 303Children of Yisra’el out of slavery in the most powerful country, politically and religiously, of the time. So the message here is that God saved his people from human oppression in a mass exodus, most kicking and screaming, but He will not do that again. When the Covenant is restored with Yisra’el it will be on a one-on-One basis and as an expression of freewill.

In the previous situation 3,500 years ago, to get Yisra’el’s attention and bring His people home, Yahowah had to intervene with overwhelming conviction. Without having done so, He would not have been able to achieve what He knew was needed to honor the promises He had made to ‘Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob. His people had to be freed from human oppression after 400 years of estrangement and slavery (40 years for each of the 10 brothers who sold Joseph into subjugation), for there to be an opportunity for them and us to respond to the original Covenant. They would have received the Towrah explaining the Covenant and then survive another 400 years such that Dowd could be anointed, unify them, establish Jerusalem as the heart of Yisra’el, and then write prophetically of his intent to fulfill the Miqra’ey which deliver the benefits of the Beryth.

Sadly, the Chosen People wouldn’t last a week before they chose to break the Covenant. They would be estranged from God, even in His presence. And as a result, they would be ravaged by invaders, be dispersed throughout the world, and suffer systematic religious and political abuse as a quid pro quo.

All of that, however, would set the stage for this day in 2033 where, by contrast, the Israelites and Jews experiencing the renewal and restoration of their relationship with God will all know Yahowah because they will have chosen to be Towrah-observant. Every celebrant will have decided to accept the conditions of the Covenant and attend the Miqra’ey. They will not come kicking and 304screaming this time, but of their own freewill. They will have made an informed and rational decision to be part of Yahowah’s Family. Yada Yahowah was composed for this purpose.

Between the bad times and good, God chose parar to explain that His people proved unreliable. Yisra’el first, then Yahuwdah, sought to nullify the Covenant relationship in preference for their religious and political agendas. They would create the competition – their own convoluted and contradictory texts which would be known over time as the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud, the Mishnah and Zohar.

Yahowah, through His prophets, beginning with Moseh, has long reminded us that Jews have been their own worst enemy. Sha’uwl | Saul / now Paul, a rebellious rabbi, would write the New Testament’s first 14 books, then inspire the next four, thereby establishing the religion. Even Muhammad, a wannabe Jewish Messiah, bastardized the Babylonian Talmud with the help of rabbis to satiate his lust for sex, power, and money – creating the Quran in the process. With both religions, Jews would not only parar the Covenant, they conceived demonic cults bent upon destroying everything God holds dear.

The “beryth – covenant” presented in this declaration is a “family relationship” whereby something is required of every member. Yahowah promises to liberate us from ourselves, our guilt, and from all forms of human oppression. To benefit, however, we must honor our side of the bargain and observe God’s instructions, distance ourselves from human institutions, and respect Yahowah’s ability to lead us home – even appreciate the role the Son of God and Messiah played to make all of this possible.

The question then becomes: how is God going to renew and reaffirm His Covenant without contradicting Himself? The answer to that question is a solution that is 305not only marvelous in its implications, but also one which completely destroys the Christian religion generally and Paul’s testimony specifically. Yahowah said:

“‘Accordingly and as a consequence (ky – because of this, yes, indeed, truthfully, and instead by contrast), this is (zo’th – specifically) the Covenant (ha beryth – the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) which, to enjoy the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – to lead to the correct path to walk to get the most out of life), I will cut (karat – I will create through separation, making and establishing (qal imperfect – with ongoing benefits over time)) with (‘eth – alongside and on behalf of) the House of Yisra’el (Beyth Yisra’el – the Home of those who Engage and Endure with God) much later after those days (‘achar ha yowm hem ha hem – during a subsequent period and in a different time, specifically in the latter days),’ prophetically declares (na’um – announces in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s personal name pronounced as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence for our shalowm – reconciliation as our ‘elowah – God):

‘I will provide, placing (nathan – I will literally give and actually ascribe, producing, offering, and bestowing at this moment in time (qal perfect)), accordingly (‘eth – the mark and message of our association), My towrah | guidance (towrah ‘any – My teaching, instruction, and directions) within them (ba qereb hem – inside of them, in their core being such that it is part of their inner person, part of their thought process and psychology, influencing their conscience and animating their lives).

And integrated into their inclinations and ability to exercise good judgment (wa ‘al leb hem – then upon their preferences and disposition, their character and thinking, their hearts and minds), I will write it (kathab hy’ – I will inscribe and engrave it (qal imperfect energic nun – literally and emphatically with ongoing implications 306throughout time)).

Then, I will (wa hayah – and I shall (qal perfect)) approach them as their God (la hem la ‘elohym – I will draw near as a Ram shepherding His sheep). And they shall be My Family (wa hem hayah la ‘any la ‘am – and they will exist near Me as My People (qal imperfect)).’” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:33)

With this statement, the basis of Christianity and the fulcrum of Paul’s argument disintegrate. It would be irrational for Yahowah to establish His Towrah, then annul His Towrah, replacing it with a “New Testament,” only to go right back to His Towrah. So if you are a Christian, now would be a good time to wave goodbye to Paul and to your faith. It was over long before it began.

This is among the most profoundly exciting announcements in the whole of the prophets. It destroys the credibility of the “Abrahamic” religions because the only actual and proven God is not only returning to His people, Yisra’el | Israel, and therefore not to Roman Catholics, Arab Muslims, American Mormons, or a Gentile Church. He is inscribing His towrah | guidance inside of the Covenant’s participants which completely negates the inclusion or appropriateness of any religious text. Since the Towrah is the ultimate answer, the means to restore the relationship, the notion it was superseded by a Talmud, New Testament, or Quran becomes ludicrous. And, of course, this means that Paul was wrong when he claimed that the Towrah was obsolete and that he had replaced it.

Second, God’s proclamation explains how the Covenant’s children will live in the hereafter. Having had the opportunity to observe the Towrah or be oblivious to it, having lived our lives under the auspices of freewill so as to be given the opportunity to accept or reject Yahowah and His Covenant, having been in the position where we have 307to work for understanding if we want to know God, a time will come when that will change. While we will retain freewill, having chosen to be with Yahowah and to be part of His Covenant Family, our Heavenly Father will be in a position to give us the guidance we will need to operate safely in four, five, six, and seven dimensions and throughout the cosmos. And that is why I have written towrah | guidance in lowercase, suggesting that this will comprise God’s teaching for living among the stars.

While this may be hard to fathom at this point, especially if you have not yet read Yada Yahowah, Observations, or Coming Home, there are dimensions beyond the three to which we are accustomed, and it is Yahowah’s intent to enable us to experience them all.

When it comes to understanding how to get the most out of living in six and seven dimensions, we will not have to translate Yahowah’s future instructions, search for the most accurate text, or seek to interpret the message because His words will be integrated into the fabric of our lives. This is something God cannot do at this time because mankind must retain the ability, no matter how foolish, to disregard the Towrah. And that becomes impossible when it is written inside of us. But in eternity, to keep us safe, it will be essential for us to have the Creator’s guidance on how to engage and what to avoid, especially when it comes to the magnitude of the forces at play throughout the universe.

While I would like the towrah even more completely integrated into my life now rather than later, it would not be appropriate, even with Covenant members. Yah is not going to supplant our freewill by imposing Himself on us. This is our time to choose, when we have the opportunity to respond to Yahowah’s calling. We can spend as much or as little time with God as we would like.

We live in an era of discovery where we can capitalize 308upon what we have been given to embark on the adventure of a lifetime. Today we have the opportunity to work with God to do something that will endure time. We can encourage others to closely examine and carefully consider Yahowah’s Towrah so that they receive the Covenant’s benefits. We can contribute to the size of God’s Family while Yahowah enhances our lives.

On this day in the summer of 2024, as has been the case for nearly 23 years, I have done my utmost to encourage all who are interested, especially Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, to “Yada Yahowah – to choose of their own accord to become familiar with, know, and understand Yahowah.” It has been and continues to be a labor of love, and the most rewarding and enjoyable opportunity of my life and of the Covenant members who support this work on behalf of God’s people.

God could have avoided religious competition long ago, and mankind’s woes would have been nonexistent. But this could not have occurred without a consequence so severe, it would have negated the very purpose of our very existence. And so Yah’s plan plays out in a manner wholly consistent with freewill.

Therefore, the reason Yahowah hasn’t yet placed His Towrah inside of us, or written His instructions on our hearts, is because freewill is sacrosanct. Today, everyone has the ability to choose to know, to love, and to trust God, to ignore God, to reject Him, or to replace Him with a divinity of man’s making. If the Torah had been mandated, had it been unrivaled, had it been incorporated into our personalities, there would have been no possible way for any religious alternative to have emerged. And without options, there would have been no choice. Without choice, loving relationships cannot exist. Therefore, while the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship and Yahowah’s Towrah Teachings are inseparable, it remains possible for us to separate ourselves from them.

309This option, which is the choice to reject Yahowah’s instructions and to disassociate from Him, has to end for eternal life with God to begin. So once all who will choose to know and respect Yahowah have decided to do so, once all who remain alive on this planet are part of Yahowah’s family, there is no need for the bane or pain of religion. And yet, even once all who remain have been adopted by Him, even when we have all become eternal and are empowered and enriched by our Heavenly Father, then, more than ever, His Guidance is essential. The universe becomes ours, as does all of God’s power and authority. So, it will be especially important that we understand how to exercise these gifts and wield our power wisely. By giving us His “towrah – guidance,” by placing all of it within us, by writing it upon our hearts, we will be equipped with the knowledge we will require to exercise our newfound freedom appropriately. And that is wonderful, landscape-changing, news. It explains how we will retain freewill throughout eternity yet keep from doing something foolish.

Therefore, Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 explains what will occur upon Yahowah’s return during “Yowm Kipurym – the Day of Reconciliations” at the end of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles. It illustrates how God will fulfill His Towrah promise to reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el and with Yahuwdym. And it tells us when the Covenant will be renewed because that is the only day in all of human history in which this transformation and restoration can occur in harmony with God’s previous testimony.

This prophetic announcement also affirms the role of the Towrah in our choice to spend eternity with God. It unifies the Towrah and Covenant as the most essential elements of being included in God’s family. And reading between the lines, it reveals how Yahowah’s Towrah will continue to guide us during the Millennial Shabat and beyond into eternity. It even explains that the purpose of 310the Covenant is to establish God’s family so that we can live with our Heavenly Father as His children.

And yet, with all of these affirmations, it is astonishing that Christians routinely mistranslate this passage, truncate it, and remove it from its context, to justify Paul’s proclamation of a “new covenant,” one based upon faith, one unrelated to the Towrah or its God. I dare say, the Christian misinterpretation of this passage ranks among the most debilitating crimes ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

Speaking of this and other crimes, Yahowah revealed the benefit of making His Towrah our undisputed and unrivaled instruction manual:

“‘No longer shall anyone impart information or teach (wa lo’ lamad ‘owd – no one will continue to instruct or learn from, nor will anyone encourage the acceptance of (piel imperfect – the recipients of this instruction will never be exposed to)) other individuals in association with an evil and outspoken world (‘ysh ‘eth rea’ huw’ – their immoral companions, friends, and errant countrymen among humankind, each of his troublesome neighbors or his loudmouthed associates in an attempt to reason with them) or (wa) even those with familial affinity (‘ysh ‘eth ‘ach huw’ – with regard to blood relatives and closely associated individuals such as family members, and in this context: Yisra’el and Yahuwdah) so as to say (la ‘amar – approaching to declare), “Yada Yahowah | We have chosen of our own accord to know Yahowah (yada’ Yahowah – decide to recognize and acknowledge Yah, and show some desire to become familiar with and understand Yahowah (qal imperative))!” because (ky – truthfully and by contrast, at this time) everyone will know Me (kol hem yada’ eth ‘any – all of them, without exception, will actually be aware of and genuinely acknowledge Me, and they will continually recognize and literally understand Me (qal imperfect)), from the youngest (la min qatan hem – 311regarding the approach of the most recent arrival among them) and up to the enduring witness of the most important and oldest (wa ‘ad gadowl hem – including those of the longest duration, the earliest arrivals whose eternal testimony remains the most significant, those who arrived a time long ago),’ prophetically reveals (na’um – announces in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s personal name pronounced as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence for our shalowm – reconciliation as our ‘elowah – God).” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:34)

Yada Yahowah. It is the most empowering declaration in the universe, the most enlightening, liberating, and enriching. It has served as the title of this series of books since the first word was written twenty-three years ago. Today, it highlights the entire collection of amplified translations, insights, and commentary on the Word of God.

Written in the qal imperative, Yada Yahowah encourages you to “choose of your own initiative to come to actually know Yahowah, to recognize and acknowledge God as He has revealed Himself, and to genuinely understand Yahowah, such that you develop an unencumbered relationship with Him.” This remains the sole intent of Yada Yahowah.

Yes, a day will come when every living soul will Yada Yahowah. It is poetic in a special way. The words that inspired the seven million which would follow throughout Yada Yahowah will be rendered obsolete. There will no longer be a need for my translations or insights because they will be vastly inferior to what Yahowah will supply. Perhaps you will be among those at my retirement party.

Before we return to Paul’s twisted repudiation of Yahowah’s Covenant, all so that he can promote a second 312covenant of his own, let’s see if we can learn something additional about Yahowah’s most important title by observing it in the language of revelation using the ancient Hebrew pictographic depictions. The first letter of “Beryth – Covenant” is Beyth , contracted from beyth, the Hebrew word for “family and home.” This letter was drawn depicting the floor plan of a house with a single entrance from above.

The second letter, Rosh , was drawn to reveal the head of an individual. As is the case with the word re’sh today, the ancient character was symbolic of being the first, best, and foremost, as well as leadership and birth. We are therefore born into the first and foremost family. The human head also focuses our attention on our eyes and ears as the means to observe and listen, and our brains as the means to understand.

Turning to the third letter, we find a Yad , today’s Yowd, pictured by way of an arm reaching down and out to us with an open hand. It conveys the idea of engaging productively to accomplish something worthwhile. As the first letter in Yah’s name, it reveals His willingness to reach out to us and lift us up.

The final character in beryth is either a Theth  or Taw , as these letters were originally one. If Theth, the pictograph was of a woven container, which was used to communicate being surrounded and enclosed, and thus valued and protected, as well as being transported from one place to another. And if Taw, the character was drawn as an upright pole with a horizontal beam. It spoke of a doorway, of foundational support, and of a sign and a signature – particularly in its Paleo Hebrew form: t.

Bringing all of these images together, the picture they paint of the “beryth – Covenant” is of a singular doorway into the protected and sheltered home of the first and foremost family, and of God reaching out to those of us 313who observe and listen to His inscription on His signed invitation.



Cognizant of Yahowah’s thoughts and promises regarding His Towrah and its centerpiece, the Covenant, we are better prepared to consider Paul’s contrarian view. He wrote:

“Speak (lego – say) to me (ego) those (oi) under (hypo – subject to the control of and submissive to) Towrah (nomon – nourishing allocation and allotment which leads to an inheritance; consistently used throughout the Septuagint to translate towrah) proposing and deciding (thelo – wanting and desiring, wishing and intending) to exist (eimi – to be), the (ton) Towrah (nomon – the source from which instruction and teaching, direction and guidance flow) do you not hear (ouk akouo – not you listen)?” (Galatians 4:21)

That was gibberish, so before I rearrange the order of the words in the opening clause so that they read more as Sha’uwl intended, let’s try to make sense of the verbal phrase, ouk akouo, literally translated as “not you hear.” It was scribed in the second-person plural (you all or all of you), present (the action is current and ongoing) active (the subject, or Torah, is performing the action) indicative (the author is indicating this situation is real). In conjunction with ouk, which is both a negative particle, annulling the action, and an interrogative, raising a question, the concluding phrase might read: “can’t you hear the Towrah?” or “the Towrah cannot hear you.”

As for the opening clause, it seems to flow better with the words reordered to read: “Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control of 314Towrah,...” If that is correct, it is being used to taunt Paul’s adversaries. After all, Paul has never demonstrated the inclination to listen to anyone, much less his foes – not even to God. Therefore, Paul is either questioning the Towrah-observant, suggesting that they do not listen to the Towrah, thereby suggesting that his knowledge is superior to theirs, or he is saying that the Towrah is unable to hear, thereby indicating that, since he has that capacity, he is again superior to God’s Word. And even though both approaches are invalid, that is the best I can do with this.

If Paul were writing for God, which he obviously was not, he would not have said, “speak to me.” Nor would he have begun by suggesting that the Towrah-observant are “hypo – controlled and submissive.” The Towrah was not designed to listen to us, but for us to listen to what God has to say through it. When we “qara’ – read and recite” the “towrah – teaching” of Yahowah, we “shamar – observe” and “shama’ – listen to” the Word of God. So once again, Paul had this all wrong.

Therefore, the problem is much deeper than the deplorable writing quality. Affirming this, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear conveys: “Say to me the under law wanting to be the law not you hear.”

Jerome ignored what Paul wrote, hoping not to destroy the wannabe apostle’s credibility. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate therefore says: “Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?”

The Authorized, and thus official, Protestant version of the “New Testament” proposed this unique spin in the King James: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?”

Unable to improve on the KJV’s corruption, the English Standard Version copied it: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” The “literal” New American Standard Bible could do no 315better, also claiming Paul wrote: “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?”

So when all hope of understanding is lost, we can always turn to the New Living Translation for a novel accounting: “Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says?” And therein lies the problem. Most Christians don’t know what the Torah says. Therefore, they don’t understand God’s Word, they don’t appreciate Dowd’s contribution to the Covenant Family, and they don’t understand that Paul despised and tried to discredit both.

Not long ago, we considered a number of statements Yahowah made about listening which conveyed exactly the opposite message. If you recall, God said: “Listen (shama’) children to the correct instruction of the Father and pay attention so as to know and understand. For indeed, such teaching and learning are good, beneficial, and helpful. For this reason, I have given you My Towrah. You should not forsake it, neglect it, or reject it.... Closely examine and carefully consider (shamar – focus upon and thoroughly evaluate) My terms and conditions and live, being restored to life.” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 4:1-2, 4)

Further assailing Paul’s credibility, Dowd | David announced on behalf of Yahowah: “The one who turns away his ear from hearing (suwr ‘owzen min shama’ – the one who avoids listening and paying attention to) the Towrah (Towrah – the source of instruction and direction, guidance and teaching), his prayers and requests (taphilah – his pleas and petitions for intervention) also (gam) will be considered detestable (tow’ebah – will be seen as a disgusting abomination).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 28:9)

Now that Paul has taken yet another lame swipe at Yahowah’s Towrah, he is ready to commence his most 316diabolical attack – demeaning the Covenant. He begins with a half-truth, with a citation which is somewhat accurate. But by framing his assault using a corruption of the Towrah, Paul has again affirmed that the text which he claims “cannot hear” and to which the Galatians were “enslaved” was Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching. Listen to one of the most successful schemers of all time twist the truth: “It has been written for Abraham two sons had one from the servant girl and one from the free.”

“For indeed (gar – because), it has been written (grapho – it has been inscribed and engraved) that (hoti) Abram (Abraam – a truncated transliteration of the pre-Covenant Hebrew name ‘Abraham, meaning Merciful and Enriching Father) two (duo) sons (huios) had (echo – possessed), one (heis) from (ek) the slave girl (tes paidiske) and (kai) one (eis) from (ek) the free and independent (tes eleutheros – freeborn person, unbound, and exempt).” (Galatians 4:22)

In actuality, it is not “written Abram had two sons,” because, from Yahowah’s perspective, Abraham only had one son. That is why God asked Abraham in Bare’syth / Genesis 22:2 to “take your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitschaq, and go to the land of Mowryah…”

Ishmael was expressly excluded from the Covenant and demonstrably banished from the Promised Land. Therefore, the “son of the slave girl” should only have been mentioned if Sha’uwl had been illustrating these facts – which we shall soon discover is the opposite of his intended purpose.

There are few individuals as important to Yahowah and His Covenant as Sarah or her son, Yitschaq. And yet Sha’uwl doesn’t even bother to mention them by name. Moreover, Sarah’s status as an “eleutheros – independent and freeborn individual” was extraneous to her role in the Covenant. She mattered because she was Abraham’s wife 317and Yitschaq’s mother. She was so important to the Covenant, when she and Abraham differed on a matter, Yahowah told Abraham to listen to his wife and do what she said. And by contrast, when Abraham asked Yahowah to make an exception on behalf of Ishmael, God said absolutely not. When Sarah laughed at something Yahowah said, God joined in, telling Sarah to name her son Laughter, which is Yitschaq in Hebrew.

Sarah’s relevance goes well beyond this. Just look at Yahowah’s name written using the ancient Hebrew pictographic letters and reading from right to left –  – whereby the final three letters following Yahowah’s outstretched hand represent “Abraham and Sarah,” with the Hebrew letter conveying the conjunction “wa – and” between them. Yahowah was thereby telling them, and us through them, that they individually as well as their family would be increased and that their home would grow and become secure. Yahowah’s favorite place on Earth, Yisra’el, is based upon Sarah’s name which means: “Individuals who Engage and Endure with God.” Therefore, being married, which is the antithesis of being “eleutheros – independent and unbound,” is why Sarah matters to the “beryth – marriage covenant and family-oriented relationship.”

But let’s remember, Paul’s affections were never directed at women. He would not know or understand the joys of marriage or of raising children. And perhaps that is why Paul imagined those he had beguiled into the Faith became his children, for whom he endured birth pangs.

Paul has reprised his “for indeed it has been written,” introductory line to deceive his audience into believing that God had an ongoing relationship with Hagar’s son. He is doing this so that he can deceive readers into believing that there were two covenants. But there aren’t, which is why Paul did not cite any portion of the story which begins in Bare’syth / Genesis 17 and is advanced through the 21^st 318chapter. And because God did not say what Paul wanted, he made something up and tried to pass it off as if it were a citation from the Towrah.

This was not the only time he would foist this fable. He parades it out again in Romans 9 where he boasted “I am not lying,” there are multiple “covenants,” with one yielding “children of the flesh,” while the other begets “children according to the promise.”

The reason for Paul’s duplicity in Galatians, as well as in Romans, is that Pauline Doctrine is built upon the following precepts: 1) God established two covenants, not one (untrue). 2) The covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai was formed with Hagar and Ishmael rather than with Sarah and Yitschaq (untrue). 3) The covenant depicted in the Torah enslaves those who observe it (untrue). 4) The verbal promises made to Abraham bypass the Torah (untrue). 5) There is no relationship between the Messiah and the Torah unless it is to free the faithful from the Towrah (untrue). 6) Christians become God’s children by way of the verbal promise, not through the Covenant or the Towrah (untrue). And 7) Believing the promise necessitates rejecting the Torah (that’s true but a horrible choice).

Sha’uwl’s entire argument is erroneous and preposterous, but yet it serves as the foundation of Christianity – a religion set apart from the Torah and its God. He was as Yahowah called him – the plague of death.

Promoting this deadly deception to Evangelical Christians, the New Living Translation lied and said: “The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife.” The authors of this sentence knew that there was no basis for “wife” in the Greek text once, much less twice, but that did not stop them from copyediting something they were passing off as “Scripture,” doing so in order to artificially elevate 319Abraham’s morality. The reason they are assisting in this way is that Pauline Doctrine is based upon Abram, at the expense, and thus exclusion, of the Torah. It is like Islam in this way.

As for the older Christian witnesses, the Protestants simply copied the Catholics. The Latin Vulgate reads: “For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman.” So the KJV wrote: “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.”

Paul’s case against the Torah hinges upon the faulty notion that the conversation Yahowah enjoyed with Abraham at the initiation of the Covenant was completely different than the Towrah’s commemoration of it, creating a contrived distinction between the promises God discussed, none of which Paul has bothered to convey, and the occasion of Yahowah asking Moseh to write them down so that the terms and benefits of His Covenant could be known to everyone (except to Paul and those he misled).

After foisting this lie, Paul reinforces it before returning to his central ploy. His religion would be based upon a promise God never made and Paul never explained. Therefore, Christianity is based on a fable wholly disassociated with Yahowah and His Towrah. Beyond this, to posture his new religious covenant, Paul would play Allah and pervert the life of a central character in Yahowah’s story. In this version of Replacement Foolology, rather than having ‘Abraham walk away from the babel | confusing intermixing of religion and politics to engage in a relationship with Yahowah, Christians would walk away from a relationship with Yahowah to become religious and confused babel | with the Lord.

Continuing to press his case, Paul was evidently learning to write while learning to lie. So, while I recognize that this statement lacks fluidity, it isn’t my fault. Consider 320the Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear: “But the indeed from the servant girl by flesh has been born the but from the free by promise.”

Removing the extraneous words, and reporting those found in the oldest manuscript more accurately, Sha’uwl wrote...

“Certainly (alla – nevertheless and to the contrary) [this affirmation (o men – the indeed; not extant in P46)] from (ek) the slave girl (tes paidiske) according to (kata – by) flesh (sarkos – physical human body and nature) has been born (gennao – has been procreated and given birth), [but that (o de – then this; not found in P46)] from (ek) the free and unbound (tes eleutheros – the freeborn person, independent, and exempt) by way of (dia – through) a proclaimed promise (epaggelia – verbal announcement and agreement).” (Galatians 4:23)

Both boys were conceived and born the same way, only by way of different mothers. Although to be fair, it took a miracle for Sarah to conceive and bear a healthy child at 90 years of age. It is even true that both children were circumcised (albeit only Yitschaq experienced it in accordance with the Torah’s instructions).

None of that mattered to Paul because his goal was to demonstrate that if you are Torah observant, then you are a slave. Whereas if you believe Paul, you are instantly saved.

It is instructive to know that, while most lexicons include “promise” among epanggelia’s definitions, the word’s etymology suggests that this rendering is a legacy of Paul’s argument. In the general sense, the noun epaggelia means “announcement.” It was primarily used as a legal term in ancient Greece and denoted a “summons.” Not surprisingly, it is derived from the verb, epaggello, which means “to announce a summons.”

Epaggelia is a compound of epi, meaning “upon, by, 321and before,” and aggelos “messenger.” So in our attempt to be accurate, according to our fledgling writer, the freeborn child was literally “by messenger,” and figuratively “by summons or announcement.”

Ever the clever one, Paul’s ploy was designed to kill two birds with a single stone. By labeling the conception of Ishmael through Hagar as “of the flesh” and Yitschaq through Sarah (albeit neither were named) “by way of a proclaimed promise,” Sha’uwl deployed a false premise and Gnostic argument to disregard the Towrah while demeaning it. His deliberate deception reinforced his view that the Torah enslaved while at the same time denouncing it as being of the flesh, and thus corruptible. This would then lead to him condemning circumcision, which was also of the flesh. So while this is nothing more than a string of half-truths, outright lies, and fallacious arguments, to Paul’s credit, they are woven together in a clever way.

Therefore, as is the case with all effective deceptions, just enough of this statement was accurate to give Paul’s ploy a veneer of credibility, making the ruse sufficiently beguiling to conceive a new religion. In reality, Sarah’s solution to God’s announcement was to provide a surrogate mother – something even more common in her day than it is now. But since Yahowah’s Covenant is based upon the importance of conceiving a loving family, the human remedy (which was to use a slave as a surrogate) was not acceptable. The Covenant (which is a mutual vow to a family relationship) would, therefore, be conceived in a manner consistent with God’s plan, not with man’s modality.

Paul’s Christian troubadours scribed the following in support of the false prophet’s scheme. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate promotes: “But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise.” So then the Protestant Authorized King James Version published: “But he who 322was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.”

The NLT’s recasting of Paul’s statement is inaccurate with regard to the Torah (Hagar was not Abraham’s wife), and also inconsistent with the Greek text of the epistle. “The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.”

Being accurate here is actually a big deal because the Covenant is the most important thing in the universe to Yahowah. Further, the original announcement of the Covenant agreement made with Abraham is found in but one place: the Towrah – which is the foundation of God’s Word. And even today, it serves as Yahowah’s invitation to us, one where we are afforded the opportunity to choose to appear before God as His children rather than appear before Him as our Judge.

Now that Sha’uwl has laid the cornerstone of his faith upon the shifting and desolate sands of deceit, he is set to erect the most beguiling straw man in human history. And since I am very uncomfortable with (read revolted by) Paul’s next statement, let’s approach the edifice of his religion by way of the Nestle-Aland’s scholastic rendering of the text through the McReynolds Interlinear: “Which is being allegorized these for are two agreements one indeed from hill Sinai to slavery giving birth who is Hagar.”

Before I comment, I’d like you to contemplate the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical portraits of Christianity’s straw man. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, compiled on the authority of his pope, reads: “Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sina, engendering unto bondage, which is Agar.” Sir Francis Bacon’s political enterprise on behalf of King James published: “Which things are an 323allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” And the Evangelical paraphrase, mislabeled the New Living Translation, in keeping with 2 Timothy 4:3, authored the following to tickle the ears of their target market: “These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them.”

Now here is a more literal and complete translation of Sha’uwl’s Greek text for your consideration:

“Whatever (hostis – whoever or anything that) is being (eimi) spoken of allegorically (allegoreo – a form of speech which should be taken figuratively, an illustrated discussion in which a comparison, illustration, or metaphor are used), these (autos) then (gar) exist as (eimi) two (duo) covenants or testaments (diatheke – dispositions or promised agreements between parties which settle affairs and facilitate inheritances through a will), one (heis) indeed (men – surely and by way of affirmation and concession) from (apo) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina – a transliteration of the Hebrew Synay) into (eis – to) subservience, slavery, and bondage (douleia), giving birth to (gennao) whoever (hostis) exists as (eimi) Hagar (Agar – transliteration of the Hebrew Hagar, from hagah, meaning to moan).” (Galatians 4:24)

In context, the Father of Lies scribed:

“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of Towrah: can’t you hear the Towrah? (Galatians 4:21)

For indeed because it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free and unbound. (Galatians 4:22)

Certainly, from the slave girl according to flesh has 324been born, while from the free by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants or testaments, one indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar.” (Galatians 4:24)

As I read these words, my hands are paralyzed above the keyboard. I am saddened and revolted. My stomach churns, my heart breaks, and my head is bowed in shame. How is it possible that the world’s largest religion was erected upon something so obviously false? Why wasn’t this letter discarded as rhetorical rubbish? Why did anyone believe Paul?

Unlike his previous statements, this is neither a credible counterfeit nor a plausible ploy. It is an outright lie – the kind of thing which only fools fools, hoodwinking the ignorant or irrational.

Paul has postured a deception that pierces the heart of God. He has crossed the point of no return and taken Christians back into the wilderness to die. Nothing ever written has been as demonic or deadly.

There is only one covenant, not two. The Hebrew word beryth upon which the Familial Covenant Relationship is based is never plural. It was established between Yahowah, Abraham and Sarah, and then affirmed with Yitschaq and Ya’aqob after them. Ishmael (who was freed, incidentally) was expressly excluded from the Covenant, and was banished from the Promised Land, as was his mother (who was also freed).

This singular Covenant begat the Children of Yisra’el. It led to the liberation of the Chosen People during the Exodus. Yahowah’s one and only Covenant was memorialized in the Towrah on Mount Sinai and serves as 325the foundation of God’s Word.

There is no association between Hagar and the revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai, or between the Covenant memorialized in the Torah, and being placed into bondage. So what Paul has done by speaking of the Covenant in these terms, by referencing bondage, and by dropping the names Sinai and Hagar, is wrap his overt lie in a grotesque corruption of the truth, making it particularly insidious. And in so doing, he established the model Muhammad, Satan’s second most effective messenger, would follow. Both religions were founded upon tormented caricatures of Abraham, at the exclusion of the Torah, Yahowah, and the truth.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism have been construed to appear credible by weaving twisted elements of truth through overt distortions of it, thereby making outright lies appear credible to the unsuspecting and unthinking. That is what has occurred here. Shards of this are true, albeit horribly misshapen to suit Satan’s agenda.

The Towrah and Prophets have allegorical elements because Yahowah loves to compose word pictures. There is a Covenant. It was codified on Mount Sinai. And while Hagar and her son were expressly excluded from it, Islam, the Arabic word for “submission,” did emerge from them, leading billions into subservience, slavery, and bondage.

In their rage, today’s Muslims have become the embodiment of Yahowah’s prediction when He said about Ishmael’s descendants: “He shall consistently be (wa huw’ hayah) a wild ass (pere’) of a man (‘adam). His hand (yad huw’) will be against everyone (ba ha kol) and everyone’s hand (wa yad kol) against him (ba huw’). Even in opposition to the presence (wa ‘al paneh) of all of his brothers (kol ‘ach huw’) he will live and remain (shakan).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 16:12)

326Unfortunately for billions of souls, the Christian religion was established upon Sha’uwl’s allegory, whereby their “‘Lord Jesus Christ’ died for them on a cross.” It did not matter that the Lord was the Adversary, that no one existed by this name or title, or that God cannot die, because the Torah was now dead and the truth had been slaughtered, replaced by Paul’s illusions. Through smoke and mirrors, lots of lying, and a heavy dose of replacement foolology, the purpose and benefits of Dowd’s sacrifice were annulled. For Christians, as a direct result of Paul, it became sufficient to “believe to be saved.” For them, a profession of faith in something that was completely invalid replaced relying upon the witness Yahowah had provided.

But why were so many people fooled by something that was diametrically opposed to that which God had communicated in His Word? After all, it is preposterous to correlate the Covenant promises memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar or to suggest that God’s Word enslaves. The Towrah’s codification of the Covenant celebrated Yahowah’s ability to lead His children – all of us – away from religious and political oppression, and to freedom.

As we wrestle with the devastating blunders in Paul’s artifice, let’s consider his selection of words. Allegoreo didn’t need to be translated because the Greek term was transliterated into English. It is from allos, meaning “other or another,” and agoreo, meaning “to address an assembly by speech or in writing.” An allegory is “another way of communicating with people through a story or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning – typically a religious or political one.”

Nonetheless, Paul is saying that no matter what the allegory or word picture God was painting in the Torah’s depiction of Hagar and her banished child, it was irrelevant to the point he, Paul, was now making: which is that there are two covenants, with the one codified with Moseh on 327Mount Sinai leading to slavery. In other words, Sha’uwl is saying: “Regardless of the intent of Yahowah’s story, my interpretation is all that matters.” Never mind that the Covenant codified with Moseh was written during the Exodus, when Yahowah was leading the Children of Yisra’el, the descendants of Yitschaq, out of the house of slavery.

If you believe Paul, when you die your soul will cease to exist – the consequence of being beguiled by a pathetic lie. If you trust Yahowah and rely upon His promises, you become God’s child and will live forever with Him. But you cannot have it both ways. To believe Paul is to distance yourself from Yahowah. To trust Yahowah is to reject Paul.

The next interesting word is diatheke. In addition to meaning “covenant,” it describes “a testament or will used to transfer property to one’s heirs.” It is from the verb, diatithemai: “to arrange one’s affairs in such a way that by entering into an agreement, a person is assured of inheriting something valuable.” The verb is a compound of dia, “by way of,” and tithemi, “that which is set aside and set in place.”

Thithemi conveys the idea of “having money laid aside to help establish someone,” and as a result, it foreshadows the concept of “redemption.” So there is nothing wrong with the word. The problem is that Paul rendered it in the plural and then he built the deadliest of all straw men upon it.

Should you want to exonerate Paul by suggesting there may have been some confusion between the Sinai Desert, which is now part of Egypt, and Mount Sinai, which is in Arabia, every lexicon at our disposal links the Sinai Peninsula with Mount Sinai. However, Mount Choreb | Horeb, which is the place where Yahowah introduced Himself to Moseh and returned to convey His Towrah to 328him was on the eastern, not western, shore of the Red Sea, and more specifically, across from Nuweiba on the Gulf of Aqaba. Moreover, Paul ends any doubt that he was speaking of Mount Sinai, not the Sinai Peninsula, again in the next verse.

That is not to say there aren’t two Sinais. There are, and they are not coterminous. The Sinai Peninsula is a desert sandwiched between the two arms of the Red Sea. The Children of Yisra’el crossed this wilderness en route to Mount Sinai, which is on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba in today’s Saudi Arabia. Hagar, however, was never in one or on the other.

Mount Sinai (more often called Choreb) was the place Yahowah introduced Himself to Moseh, and where He subsequently revealed the Towrah to him following the Exodus. However, Hagar wandered aimlessly toward Shur before Ishmael was born. Shur, we learn from Bare’syth / Genesis 16:7, 20:1, 25:18 and Shemowth / Exodus 15:22, was within walking distance of what is today’s southeastern border of Israel. That places Shur east of Egypt, east of the Sinai Peninsula, and east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Then after Ishmael was born, Hagar and her son were banished into the desert of Paran, which is similarly located.

Rather than associating the wilderness of Sin (a.k.a. the Sinai Peninsula) with Paul’s four references to Sina (two in Galatians and two in Acts), Strong’s Lexicon defines Sina as “a mountain or rather a mountainous region in the Arabian Peninsula made famous by the giving of Mosaic Law.” They are mostly right, which makes Paul completely wrong.

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament says of Sina: “the mountain or mountain range in the peninsula of the same name, between Egypt and modern Saudi Arabia.” Unaware that the “peninsula” was and 329remains part of Egypt today, they would be wrong on both accounts. The Mount Sinai Moseh visited before he entered Egypt, and again after he had left Egypt, was on the eastern side of the Red Sea crossing, and thus not in Egypt but instead on the Arabian Peninsula.

The Complete Word Study Dictionary also exacerbates Paul’s dilemma, saying that Sina refers to “the site of the burning bush.” It is “the name of a peninsula and a mountain range.” In that they go on to associate the location of Mount Sinai within the Sinai Peninsula, they would also be wrong, as there would have been no sea to cross and the Exodus would have stalled in Egypt.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament cites Acts 7:38 which digs Paul into a still deeper hole. It reads: “They are the ones who became the called-out assembly in the desert with the messenger speaking to him in the Mount Sinai (Sina) and our fathers who welcomed the living words given to us.”

But we did not need the help of the scholastic tomes to condemn Paul. He hung himself. In his very next statement, he acknowledges that the Sina he is referencing to falsely associate a covenant with Hagar is “Sinai mountain existing in Arabia.” And that is Mount Choreb | Horeb upon which Yahowah revealed His Towrah | Teaching to Moseh.

There is yet another interesting insight into Sinai. Spelled Syny in Hebrew, in the ancient pictographic alphabet, it would have been written –  . Syny | Sinai would have conveyed: “the sign of the open and receptive hand of God reaching down and out to us to conceive children who grow by going to where God’s hand leads.”

Also interesting, considering Hebrew grammar, the Yowd  at the conclusion of Syny would read as “My” or “I.” Therefore, Syny |   means Sign I Handed to My Children.

330There is no doubt Paul proposed two covenants and God has said there is only one. Paul wrote that there was a covenant formed with Hagar, and God has said that His Covenant was formed with Abraham and Sarah. Further, Paul has said that the covenant codified on Mount Sinai enslaves us while God has demonstrated that it liberates. Therefore, since there is an irreconcilable divide between Paul and Yahowah, one of the two must be wrong.

Beyond the stark contrast between God and this man, ponder the preposterous notion of using the Towrah’s central story to advance a doctrine designed to destroy the credibility of that same Towrah. And yet, since the Towrah is the only place that Abraham, Sarah, and the Covenant are known, that is exactly what Paul has done.

Since I am stating categorically, not allegorically, that Paul, the mother of the Christian Church, is lying, and that his thesis is in direct opposition to God, let’s consider Yahowah’s side of this story. He was opposed to establishing a Covenant relationship with Hagar’s son: “Then Abraham said to God, ‘What about Ishmael? Could he exist in your presence?” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:18) “God said, ‘Absolutely not.’” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:19) There would be no covenant of any kind with “the son of the slave woman.” Sorry, Paul. To quote Yahowah, “Absolutely not.”

The Covenant is singular and eternal. It was affirmed with ‘Yitschaq as opposed to Ishmael: “Sarah, your wife, shall have a child, bearing your son, and you shall call his name: ‘Yitschaq.’ I will stand up and establish My Covenant Relationship with him as an eternal and everlasting family relationship with his offspring after him.” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:19) Yahowah’s Word and Paul’s letter are irreconcilable, as are those who place their faith in Paul’s lies.

In direct opposition to Paul’s claim that “indeed from 331Mount Sinai into slavery,” on Mount Sinai, and in His own hand, Yahowah wrote: “I am Yahowah, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:2)

The following statement, also from the Towrah, obliterates the notion that Paul had a poetic license to delete portions of Yahowah’s Guidance he did not like, or add his own commandments: “With all the words (dabar – communications and statements) which, for the benefit of the relationship, I provide as Instructions for you (tsawah ‘eth – provide by way of direction to you), closely observe and carefully consider them (shamar – focus upon them). Do not add (yasap – make any increase or addition) to them and do not decrease or reduce them (gara’ – subtract from them).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:32)

As for Paul’s assertion that the Torah had a limited shelf life, Yahowah inspired Yasha’yah / Isaiah to write: “This dwelling place (chasyr – the abode), he will be gone for a while (yabesh – he will temporarily dry up (qal perfect)), the blossoming and gleaming flower (tsyts – the beautifully adorned and sparkling bud), he will be treated with contempt at this moment (nabel – he will be temporarily disrespected and disdained (qal perfect)) because, truly (ky), the Spirit (ruwach) of Yahowah (Yahowah), She blows like the wind, dispersing and driving away forcefully through him (nashab ba huw’ – She moves within him and out of him like the wind at this time (qal perfect)).

Insightfully (‘aken – truthfully, as a means to reveal causation), the abode (chatsyr – the dwelling place) is of the family (ha ‘am), (Yasha’yah 40:7) because the Word (wa dabar) of our God (‘elohy ‘anachnuw) stands (quwm – is established and confirmed) forever (la ‘owlam – eternally and forevermore).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah 40:8)

332The unchanging nature of God and His Covenant promises will be honored (which is to say they have been and will continue to be fulfilled, even in our future): “Because I, Yahowah, have not changed, you, the children of Ya’aqob | Yisra’el, will not perish or be destroyed.” (Mal’aky / Messenger / Malachi 3:6)

Why do Christians believe Paul’s anti-Torah rhetoric when his statements are diametrically opposed to the Sermon on the Mount?

“You should not think or assume (me nomizomai – you do not consider, expect, or suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti – namely) I actually came (erchomai – I in fact appeared then, now, or in the future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard (kataluo – to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes – those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making God’s thoughts and plans known even before they happen).

I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to create a division, to dismiss, to invalidate, or to discard (kataluo – to tear down, to dissolve, to destroy, to disunite, to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to abolish, dismissing any implication or its influence) but, instead (alla – to the contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty), to completely fulfill (pleroo – to proclaim and complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly). 333(Matthew 5:17)

For this reason (gar – because then so that you understand) in deed and in truth (amen – truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), until (hoes – up to the point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e ge – the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai – pass away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me – there is no way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the smallest letter (eis iota – shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowah’s name and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the pen (mia keraia – one of the smallest lines distinguishing any aspect of any Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai – be averted or neglected, have any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted, perishing) from (apo – being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the Towrah (tou nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas – every last aspect, all and the totality of it) might take place (ginomai – happens and occurs, becoming a reality). (Matthew 5:18)

Therefore (oun – indeed and as a result), whoever may at any time (hos ean – if at any moment anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby individuals) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo – may seek to toss aside, invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and instructions which are enjoined (entole – rules, regulations, and authorized directions, precepts, and teachings), or (kai) he may espouse and indoctrinate (didasko – he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) mankind 334(anthropos – humanity) in this manner (houto – thusly and likewise), he will be afforded the name and will be judicially summoned as (kaleo – he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and passively summoned, called to task and designated) Lowly and Little (elachistos – Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient, irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin name Sha’uwl adopted as his own means elachistos – little and lowly)) by the kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos – by, within, among, and with regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).

And then (de – but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it (addressing the Towrah (poieomai – may engage through the Towrah, making the most of it, attempting to carry out its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive))) and (kai) teach it (didasko – try to provide and share the Towrah’s instructions, expounding upon its guidance), this (houtos – these things) will properly be referred to and called (kaleo – it will be judiciously and appropriately designated) great and important (megas – astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon) among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos – by and with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens).” (Matthew 5:19) This statement regarding the Towrah is the antithesis of what Paul wrote throughout his letter to the Galatians.

The Instruction on the Mount concludes with this announcement regarding the connection between the Towrah and life…

“If (ei – introducing a condition which must occur or be met before the resulting event can be manifest), therefore (oun), you all (umeis) presently and actively being (ontes – currently existing and in the process of being (present active participle)) troublesome and 335morally corrupt (poneros – seriously flawed, evil and annoying, blind and diseased) have in the past been familiar with and have actually known how (oida – have perceived and have shown that you are genuinely aware of, having recognized how (perfect (a completed action in the past) active indicative)) to give (didomi – to provide) good and beneficial (agathos – moral, generous, and useful) gifts (doma – presents) to your children (tois umon teknon – to your descendants and offspring), how much more by contrast will (posos mallon) your Father (o umon pater), the One in the Heavens (o en tois ouranos), actually give (didomi – personally respond to reliably produce, grant, and bestow (future active indicative)) something good, moral, generous, and beneficial (agathos – that which is upright and worthy, capable and substantial, valuable and kind) to those asking Him (tois aiteo auton – actively responding to Him making a request of Him (present active participle))?

Anything (pas – everything), therefore (oun – then), to the degree or extent (ean hosos – whenever and as far as) you might want or may enjoy (thelo – you might decide or presently desire, you may propose or be of the opinion or currently think something might be so, perhaps personally being fond of or taking pleasure in your will, your intent and your purpose (present active subjunctive)) as a result of (hina – that) men being human (oi anthropos – individuals representing mankind and humankind (nominative plural)) doing to you (poieo umin – actively attempting to assign these things with regard to you (present active subjunctive dative)), also (kai) in this way (houto – likewise in this manner, thusly) you (umeis) should choose to actively do to them (poieomai autois – you may elect to perform and behave unto them (present active imperative)).

This (houtos) then (gar – for this reason) presently is (estin – exists as) the Towrah (o nomos – Torah teaching, 336guidance, direction, and instruction, becoming the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; translated using nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets (kai oi prophetes) under the auspices of freewill, you all should choose at some point in time to enter, personally engaging by moving (eiserchomai – at a moment in time you ought to want to personally act by electing to go in, beginning the journey by choosing to experience (aorist active imperative)) through (dia – by way of and on account of) the narrow, specific, seldom-tread, and exacting door (tes stenos pule – the doorway with known requirements which is restrictive, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom walked, an infrequently-trodden gateway (note: stenos is based upon histemi which provides the concluding insights)) because (hoti – for the reason that namely) broad, manmade, and crafted to be wide open (platys – molded, malleable, plastic, and easily crafted and plied, a wide and artificial thoroughfare; from plasso – formed and molded by man, serving as the basis of plastic) is the door (pule – is the gate) and spacious (eurychoros – as encompassing as nations, widely regional, and broadly societal; sharing a base with eusebeia – especially religious, speaking of belief systems and their devout and pious practices) is the way (e hodos – is the path and journey, the popular way through life, the well-traveled road and route, the common course of conduct) which misleads and separates (e apago – that takes away, leading through deception; from ago – directs, leads, and guides to apo – separation) into (eis) utter destruction (apoleia – needlessly squandering and ruining the valuable resource of one’s existence, causing it to perish; from apollumi – to be put entirely out of the way, to be rendered useless and to be abolished, 337coming to an end and ceasing to exist), and a great many (kai polys – the vast preponderance, an enormous number, and to a very great degree, serving as a superlative of great, many, much, and a large number) are those (eisin – are actually the ones (present active indicative)) who are influenced into moving while suffering the consequences of entering (oi eiserchomai – who as a result of being acted upon are affected by taking the first step toward and then going in, manipulated in the process of beginning a journey while experiencing the effect of going out (present middle passive participle nominative)) through it (dia autos – by way of it).

Certainly (tis – it is certain that), the appropriate doorway has specific requirements, it is narrow, seldom tread, and it is an exacting passageway (e stenos pule – the doorway is highly restrictive, the passageway is unpopular and infrequently walked whereby a stand is taken to enable others to stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld), and it goes against the crowd to the point of being exceedingly unpopular (kai thlibomai – it is so totally shunned to the point of being rebuked (perfect passive participle nominative)), the one way (e e hodos – the specific journey through life, the singular route and the path) which leads, separating those guided (apago) unto (eis) life (zoe – vigorous and flourishing living, the fullness of a restored and active existence), but (kai) very few (oligos – an extremely small quantity over a very short time) are those (eisin o – exist the ones) finding it (heuriskomai autos – presently learning and actively discovering the location of it, themselves experiencing it).” (Matthew 7:11-14)

According to the pronouncements found throughout the Sermon on the Mount, the Towrah provides a seldom-tread doorway to life while man’s popular ways lead to death. This declaration, also found in the Gospels, echoes the same message…

338“He said to them, ‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was with you, because it is necessary to completely fulfill everything that is written in the Towrah of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms about me.’

Then he opened their minds so that they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand what had been written.

He told them, ‘Because, in this way, it is written that the Implement of Yah must undergo and experience suffering and be enabled to arise from being separated on the third day.

And it should be announced publicly in Yahowah’s name, ‘Change your perspective, attitude, and thinking to be forgiven and pardoned for wandering from the path and missing your inheritance,’ to all nations, races, and places, commencing from Yaruwshalaim. You are witnesses to this.

And behold, I have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message of My Father’s announced and promised agreement.

But now, you remain in the city until you are clothed in power and ability from above.’” (Luke 24:44-49)

In direct opposition to Paul, Dowd (who most know as David) wrote the following lyrics for a Song to proclaim the value of the Towrah:

“Day unto day pours out answers, and night unto night reveals knowledge which leads to understanding.

Nothing exists without the Word. There is nothing of value when and where the spoken and written message of the voice which calls out is corrupted or negated, becoming unimportant and not heard.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:2-3)

339And as we know, he also affirmed…

“Yahowah’s Towrah is wholly complete and entirely perfect, returning, restoring, and transforming the soul. Yahowah’s eternal witness and restoring testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the receptive.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

This is the antithesis of everything Paul has written. If only Christians would compare this passage to Paul’s epistles, they would reject everything he wrote in favor of what God revealed.

But Dowd | David was not finished affirming what Paul attempted to belittle…

“Yahowah’s directions for living are right, causing the heart to rejoice. Yahowah’s terms and conditions are morally pure, shining a light toward understanding.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:8)

Dowd did not find the Towrah to be an unbearable burden as Paul has alleged. Since Dowd is right (tsadaq – correct according to Yahowah), the basis of Paul’s manifesto is wrong.

This speaks of God’s purpose, which is to form a relationship with us, and of His promise, which is to make such a thing possible and enduring. To accomplish this, God must make us acceptable…

“Revering and respecting Yahowah is cleansing and restoring, sustaining and establishing forever. The just means to execute good judgment and resolve disputes of Yahowah are trustworthy and reliable, enduring and dependable. They are wholly vindicating, making the recipient right.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:9)

So much for Paul’s notion that God’s Towrah never justifies and always enslaves. Dowd | David is the central 340figure in God’s story. He is the Messiah, Son of God, King, and Shepherd, a prophet as well as our Savior, while Sha’uwl / Paul, as the Father of Lies, Plague of Death, and Son of Evil is a blithering idiot. This is not a difficult choice.

The man Yahowah announced was “tsadaq – correct” wrote…

“Moreover, your coworker is admonished and enlightened, being taught by them. And in carefully observing them, there is a great benefit and reward.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:11)

This was and remains the purpose of the Towrah. It’s our Maker’s Operating Manual, telling us through words how to get the most out of this life and make it to the next. Those who carefully observe what our Heavenly Father had to say will be rewarded because they will become His children and inherit the universe.

This, the most debilitating crime, became Sha’uwl’s Achilles heel…

“Also, keep your coworker away from arrogance, not letting this rule over me. Then I will be completely prepared and blameless, ready for action, upright, and lacking nothing, and I will be considered innocent, distanced from the great transgression of rebellion.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:13)

Since God is right, Paul was wrong. Observing the Towrah is the source of wisdom, renewal, joy, enlightenment, being eternally established in Yahowah’s presence, being considered right and vindicated, in addition to providing a great reward. While we should be exceedingly grateful, exuberant in our enthusiasm, and confident in our disposition, there is no reason for arrogance because we are reliant on Yahowah, not ourselves. If we are self-directed or self-important, then we 341are not in a position to rely upon Yahowah’s provision and are in no position to speak for Him. In this light, it is especially worth noting that Dowd | David listed “rebellion” as “the great transgression,” something Paul should have considered before he spoke so defiantly against God.

Dowd’s closing line is particularly inspiring...

“Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable and pleasing in your presence, Yahowah, my Rock and my Redeemer.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:14)

The means to this wonderous outcome is by observing the Towrah | Guidance of Yahowah – the very thing Paul told his believers to avoid like the plague.

Since Sha’uwl’s / Paul’s message and Dowd’s are diametrically opposed, there is but one informed and rational conclusion: Paul lied. He was a false prophet. While the issue of whether or not Yahowah can be trusted is life and death to all of us, and is easily answered, it is irrelevant to Paul’s veracity because he claimed to speak for the God he contradicted.

This is the end of the line for Sha’uwl. The Father of Deception has proven beyond any doubt that he was the Devil’s Advocate. There is not a snowflake’s chance in She’owl that Sha’uwl spoke for God. His epistle was not inspired and thus is not “Scripture.” The Son of Evil was a complete and utter fraud.

Had Paul not repeatedly made the presumptuous claim that he was speaking for God as His authorized apostle to the world, had Paul not claimed that he could not lie, had he not said that his preaching saved those who believed him, or that the faithful were his children and should follow his example, then his errant statements would have been no different than thousands of other misguided religious 342advocates. But he made these claims. And as a result, Paul’s lifeless deceptions were placed in the heart of the New Testament canonized by the faith he conceived. The consequence of his arrogance has been catastrophic.

When considering this comparison, it should be noted that Yahowah used precisely fulfilled prophecy, brilliantly conceived imagery, a masterfully designed plan, and a consistent, multi-faceted, intertwined message, along with the creation of the universe and the conception of life, to prove beyond any doubt that His Word could be trusted. But Paul could neither write intelligently nor credibly recount his own personal history. This contest has not been David versus Goliath; it has been a speck of dust against the Creator and His universe. So why is it then that nearly two billion Christians believe Paul over Yahowah?

Christians have been deceived by a psychotic man. They are, however, responsible for their own predicament. A person must be tragically ignorant and hopelessly irrational to believe anything Paul has written. He is the scum of the earth. And yet it is likely Paul’s faith that has incapacitated believers, such that they no longer think that the truth matters.

